aiqbench analysis
This study systematically evaluates bias in large language models when used as relevance judges for advertising, revealing how advertiser identity and input language influence fairness assessments. The research demonstrates that demographic associations involving gender and occupation persist across different model architectures, highlighting critical risks for practitioners deploying these systems in real-world ad campaigns. These findings provide a technical foundation for developing targeted mitigation strategies during both training and inference phases to ensure equitable algorithmic decision-making.
A Systematic Investigation of Bias in Large Language Models for Advertising Relevance
arXiv:2610.07544v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to judge how well an advertisement matches a query, but the fairness of these judgments has received limited attention. We conduct a systematic study of fairness in relevance judgments made by LLMs for queries and advertisements. Our counterfactual framework examines the effects of advertiser identity and possible popularity, input language, and demographic wording. We study GPT-4o as a categorical relevance judge and a Qwen-7B model trained specifically for relevance prediction. The advertiser and language experiments use query and advertisement pairs sampled from real advertising logs. Controlled synthetic queries are used to study demographic associations in employment, housing, and credit. For both models, changing the advertiser identity or input language can alter the relevance assessment. Selected demographic comparisons also show patterns consistent with common stereotypes, particularly those involving gender and occupation. We further study mitigation during model inference and training. The results indicate that its effectiveness depends on whether advertiser information is relevant to the query and how advertiser labels are distributed in the training data. These findings can help advertising practitioners identify fairness risks and develop suitable mitigation methods for LLM relevance systems.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to judge how well an advertisement matches a query, but the fairness of these judgments has received limited attention. We conduct a systematic study of fairness in relevance judgments made by LLMs for queries and advertisements. Our counterfactual framework examines the effects of advertiser identity and possible popularity, input language, and demographic wording. We study GPT-4o as a categorical relevance judge and a Qwen-7B model trained specifically for relevance prediction. The advertiser and language experiments use query and advertisement pairs sampled from real advertising logs. Controlled synthetic queries are used to study demographic associations in employment, housing, and credit. For both models, changing the advertiser identity or input language can alter the relevance assessment. Selected demographic comparisons also show patterns consistent with common stereotypes, particularly those involving gender and occupation. We further study mitigation during model inference and training. The results indicate that its effectiveness depends on whether advertiser information is relevant to the query and how advertiser labels are distributed in the training data. These findings can help advertising practitioners identify fairness risks and develop suitable mitigation methods for LLM relevance systems.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.07544 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.07544v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.07544 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 284 words
Related coverage
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · Jul 31, 2026
Building and evaluating model diffing agents
AI Alignment Forum · Jun 12, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026
Value Leakage: An LLM’s Answers Are Silently Shaped by Its Own Values
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 31, 2026